Who We Are: Kitt Research Initiative

We are the Kitt Research Initiative, based out of the Portsmouth, NH, area. We initially formed 18 months ago as the Seacoast Paranormal Research Group, but the core team of that group has found we have outgrown the mission we stated as such, and have very recently separated ourselves. This new investigative body remains interested in the full scope of paranormal phenomena, but primarily focuses on hauntings and experimenting with metaphysics.

I started the Group shortly after a particularly intense series of encounters primarily to find a venue in which to talk about it with people who didn't think I was crazy, but the influence of "Ghost Hunters" (and one particularly driven Medium!) quickly prompted us to move from "research" to "investigation." From there we've begun testing the effectiveness and outcomes of various techniques and methodology until we've been able to streamline our goals and protocols into what is now the KRI. So here we are...

"Paranormal," for us, encompasses anything outside the hard sciences, so we're pretty diverse. We are a "research initiative," meaning we trust no one's assertions regarding what to do, how to do it, nor what any of it means. We have taken it upon ourselves to find out what works and what doesn't, and which paradigms hold up best under close scrutiny. We are constantly surprised by the lack of "science" found in both the "paranormal" and "skeptical" communities, and are looking to bridge the intellectual gap between them. As a group, we no longer entertain much credulity towards the methods and assertions used / made by TV investigators, so we tend to "try everything" while investigating sites, check our results, form hypotheses, then test and evaluate them in a more controlled environment. The primary difference between our own procedures and those of TV ghost hunting is that we work with a Medium under as strictly controlled conditions as the site will allow and attempt to cross-validate her subjective interpretations with our objective data (recorded evidence) and historical research. And, occasionally, we've obtained some pretty amazing results!

An investigation, for us, begins with an interview. We receive a great number of requests for investigation - or seek out sites with a known reputation - but only finally select locations after we're satisfied there is a strong suggestion that manifestations are repeatable enough to warrant our time and efforts. The interview includes collecting first-hand accounts, and a site "walk-through" to identify safety hazards and areas with high probabilities of phenomenal occurrences. We set up the formalities (arrival / lock-in times, police notification, equipment preparation, etc.), and proceed. Once on-site, the investigators appropriately set up video (both CCTV and portable) and audio (each participant is wired for sound) equipment while a "sensitive" walks through gathering and recording her opinions and sensations. We then break up into small groups and attempt communication with alleged presences.

After at least an hour, the Medium calls in for directions (we limit her advance knowledge to the town of the site, and a time to be there - for validation purposes), arrives, and does her (recorded) walk-through as well. We again split into small groups and circulate, until we feel there is nothing further to be gained. Under most circumstances, the on-site investigation will end with the Medium attempting to "clear" or "cross" anything present (as she deems appropriate) and we break down the equipment. The on-site portion of an investigation can run anywhere from two to 16 hours.

The various recordings / data are then distributed amongst the investigators, reviewed (noting time marks of "incidents," and sounds/images whose sources cannot be easily identified), and collected by the lead investigator, who them compiles those notes, synchronizes all the data, and eliminates as many mundane occurrences as possible. What remains is then put forth to the investigators at a meeting to discuss possible causes and sources, and that remaining data is compared to the observations of both the sensitive and the Medium for correlation and possible validation. An historical background of the site (and those individuals known to be associated with the site) is then assembled, and that too is compared to the Medium's observations.

We then write it up (including both validations and refutations, of anecdotes, previously reported accounts, and Medium inputs), summarize our findings and recommendations, give a copy of the report to the site proprietor, and, if appropriate, issue a press release.

More interesting now, however, is what happens after it's all done. We compare each report to those made prior, look for similarities and contrasts in results, and consider experiments and improvements to our methods and paradigms. We have an extremely sharp learning curve, and it's improving the quality of our efforts from investigation to investigation. We are now very involved in lecturing and teaching classes.